The more things change…

The big eco-news this week has been Rudd’s changes to the proposed ETS. He could see that his legislation wasn’t going to pass in it’s existing format, so decided to try again. The result is something that gives some nice soundbites for the 6pm news, but actually makes the trading scheme less likely to make any difference to Australia’s emissions.

The good (well, mediocre):

• committing to emissions cuts of 25%, if the rest of the world reaches an agreement in Copenhagen later this year. We’re still stuck with the useless 5% if all these shenanigans prevent a global agreement from happening

The bad:

• a delayed start (2011 instead of 2010), even though early action is cheaper than later action
• a “recession buffer”, which is just another handout to the corporations who knew climate change was happening and did nothing about it

The ugly:

• a carbon price of $10/tonne, even though experience in Europe shows that $15/tonne is too cheap to make a difference
• unlimited permits, which makes the “trading” part of the scheme worthless

See Anna Rose’s summary of the changes at Crikey’s Rooted blog for more information.

This announcement makes me wonder what the Rudd government is trying to achieve. Some say they want to get the Coalition to back this new legislation, which seems like the obvious thing. Others are speculating that they don’t want anyone to like it, so that if they keep trying to pass it through parliament and it gets turned down repeatedly, they’ll have a trigger for a double dissolution. That would mean another election, which is good news in my books – it’d mean that the Greens would very likely get the balance of power in the Senate.

But I don’t know. I suspect that really, it’s that the key decision-makers in the Labor party just don’t get it. They think climate change is another political football to be kicked around, instead of the greatest global challenge we’ve ever faced. They’re happy to let corporations write the legislation for them, because they don’t think the details matter. They talk a good talk, but it’s nothing but (increasingly) hot air.

Whatever happens next, I’m sure we’ll be debating the ETS for years to come. Whenever a new plan is put before us (and is the Coalition ever going to offer an alternative?), be sure to assess it based on three things:

1. Who’s paying the bill?
2. Where does that money go?
3. How much change in emissions is created?

Frank Jotzo, an environmental economist who was an adviser to the Garnaut Review (remember that?), says “These are questions that must be addressed regardless of whether the policy instrument of choice is an emissions tax or trading scheme. And they must be addressed with the long-term public interest at heart, without fear of change and without favour to large emitters.”

These questions are all that matters as we try to come up with a way of saving the planet.